Are Other Hominins (Hominoids) Alive Today?

[Drew]

Saskeptic- the first thing I thought of was that he was seeing birds from the Arctic breeding population, that were passing through to their summer breeding grounds, and back to their winter grounds.

DDT had pretty much decimated the midwest US populations, here in Michigan they brought them back with an urban re-introduction.

[Guest MikeG]

So, in other words, an evidentiary double standard. One for "known", one for "unknown".

I really don't see it as a double standard at all.

In one case we're discussing the sighting of a scientifically known animal. In another case we're discussing the existence or otherwise of an entire species. With the first, there is not a lot to be lost if the report is accepted but was actually false. With the second, there is an awful lot to be lost in the same circumstance..........credibility. If science recognised species just because of multiple reports we would have Latin names for dragons, unicorns, the Loch Ness monster, chupacabra, fairies, and Spring-heeled Jack........and science/ biology/ zoology would rightly have no credibility whatsoever.

I am very sanguine about having the bar set high. Not that I see it as that high, actually.......

Mike

[Guest]

Right, it's not high at all. The bar is simply set to "prove it" and that has sufficed for the 3 million or so species that have been described to-date. No reason to lower that bar for bigfoot, even if Mulder wants it that way.

[Guest]

I really don't see it as a double standard at all.

Impartiallity and equality of treatment are part of objectivity.

If you set one standard of evidence for one thing and another for another, you are neither impartial nor treating claims equally.

If science recognised species just because of multiple reports we would have Latin names for dragons, unicorns, the Loch Ness monster, chupacabra, fairies, and Spring-heeled Jack........and science/ biology/ zoology would rightly have no credibility whatsoever.

Tracks, forensically typed hairs, blood-typed blood, body impressions, photos, etc.

You always leave those out, casting the case for BF as being merely "anecdotal" when the simple fact is that we have far more than anecdotes.

Right, it's not high at all. The bar is simply set to "prove it" and that has sufficed for the 3 million or so species that have been described to-date. No reason to lower that bar for bigfoot, even if Mulder wants it that way.

No one is arguing for a "lower bar". Proponents are just tired of seeing the bar set way above what would be required of any other claim, and raised every time new evidence is adduced to meet the higher bar.

[Guest MikeG]

You're just factually wrong with that last claim, Mulder. The bar is exactly the same height as for every other species. Put a lump of a sasquatch flesh or bone, the bigger the better, in a museum for any scientist to examine and it's "case closed". No different from any other new species.

Mike

[Cotter]

I don't even remember the name of the book.

We are sprinters, as most if not all animals on the planet, the theroy/hypothesis/wild guess or whatever you call it has been panned by most training guides and running/triathlon mags I've read, we humans have to be very specifically trained to go long distance and are actually very inefficient runners, very good walkers though!

There's very little evidence if any with the exception of some of the runners out of Kenya that long distance running is something we've ever been good at IMO.

Working together in short burst sure, but running down deer, antelope on the open plains laughable even as I type it.

Seen any reports of it in the past 300 or so years from the native cultures in Africa, if it was so successful and widespread one would kinda think it would have survived as a hunting technique, oh I'm sorry I was using logic we don't like that kinda talk around here.. thats all I got for tonite....nite nite!

Good morning Cervelo:

If tactics were applied similar to what wild dogs and other pack hunters use, I can see a 'human' application of that technique being successful. One on one? 1 animal outrunning 1 human, not so much, a group however, much more plausible.

I think that perhaps with the advancement of technology (better weapons mainly), that hunting technique has taken a back seat to other, more modern techniques.

[Drew]

No one is arguing for a "lower bar". Proponents are just tired of seeing the bar set way above what would be required of any other claim, and raised every time new evidence is adduced to meet the higher bar.

Tell us which 'claim' is held to a higher standard than any other claim?

is it this one?

Maybe it is this one?

Oh, it must be this one:

[Guest FuriousGeorge]

Tracks, forensically typed hairs, blood-typed blood, body impressions, photos, etc.

You always leave those out, casting the case for BF as being merely "anecdotal" when the simple fact is that we have far more than anecdotes.

Because finding human tracks, forensically typed goat hairs, blood-typed cow blood, elk body impressions, and bear photos don't really help us locate bigfoot.

[Guest Kronprinz Adam]

Very interesting KA. I think the phenomenon of "boogy men", to put a general term on it, is distributed worldwide. If you haven't had a chance to read it, you should also read Sanderson's Abominable Snowmen, Legend Come to Life (1961). It is available to read here on the web: http://www.sacred-te...r/abs/index.htm

....

Hi Bfsleuth!!! Sanderson's book is a very good one!!! By the way, I enjoyed very much the chapter about Guatemala...I think he was on my country in the 40s or 50s...he got his stories from a geologist who was making research there, making trips into the mountains (even reaching highlands) with some local [maya-related] guides...according to the story, the guides avoided some specific mountains and valleys on the highest parts, which were inhabited by the giant ape-like Sisimites...

The geologist described ancient maya ruins on his exploration trips...I had no information of any major maya city on the area until I found this...

http://www.mimundo-p...-submerged.html

The city was submerged into the river due to the construction of a dam some decades ago....the zone also had a lot of guerilla fighting on the 70s and 80s....so I think we will never find out if these "Sisimites" were fragments of ancient maya oral traditions, or a real creature gone extinct....

On the other hand, a mexican anthropologist called Roger Bartra wrote a series of books about the european Woodewasa legend , the books are "The wild men looking glass" and "The Artificial Savage"..his work his also noteworthy...

http://www.amazon.co...35194866&sr=1-8

http://www.amazon.co...35194866&sr=1-9

http://www.krazykiot...s/the-wodewose/

Greetings..

K. Adam.

Edited April 23, 2012 by Kronprinz Adam

[Guest BFSleuth]

Thank you Kron for the links! I've got reading to do.

May I also add how refreshing it is to actually see someone posting in the thread regarding the topic of the original post. +1 to you...

[Guest]

Because finding human tracks,

Incorrect. BF tracks have distinct biometric indicators that separate them from human tracks.

From Fahrenbach's paper:

Ball Width and Width Index

One of the characteristics of sasquatch foot prints that sets them apart from their human counterparts, aside from length, is the disproportionate width at the ball of the foot (Fig. 2), a ratio that is reminiscent of the foot of a human infant.

Descriptive statistics of 438 foot print widths yield a range of 3" to 13.5" and an average of 7.2". This width can be represented directly in relation to foot length, but a more instructive display is the ratio of width divided by length, called the width index. If these values (0.46 for the mean foot size) are plotted against foot length (Fig. 3), the calculated regression line shows a minimal decrease with increasing foot length, that is, the width increase lags slightly behind the growth in length.

This identical tendency has been studied in human feet over a range of 6"-12" foot length in 897 adult men and women by the NIKE Research Lab. Here, the relative narrowing of the foot is much more pronounced (Fig. 3, lower line). The foot of a 7’3" teenage basketball star measured 16.5" in length, but only 5.5" in width (width index 0.33).

Almost the entire set of graphed sasquatch foot prints has a greater width index than average adult human feet do. Human infants have a width index of about 0.43 and the Patterson sasquatch 0.41.

Heel Width

The heel width histogram (Fig. 4) mirrors that of the foot lengths rather closely, though being lower in numbers (N=123). The widest sasquatch heels challenge one’s credulity unless one has seen the proportion of the heel to the size of the whole foot. Heels range from 1.5" to 9" in width and average 4.8".

As is the case with the ball of the foot, the heel does not grow in proportion to the length of the foot but lags behind, as the human heel does. The sasquatch appears to rely less on the heel plant in walking, but rather bears more of its weight on the broad anterior part of the foot, distal to the metatarsal hinge (see below) or, for that matter, more evenly distributed over the entire sole in the absence of an arch. In an expertly documented track of 14" prints, the imprint changed from a normal shape during calm walking to a round foot print, i.e., the anterior half of the foot, during running (step length changing from 4’ to 9’), in which the heel never touched the ground.

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/henner.htm

See also Meldrum:

http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/fxnlmorph.html

forensically typed goat hairs

Again Incorrect

Hair samples allegedly coming from a Bigfoot are potentially the most important pieces of evidence because under the right circumstances DNA can be extracted from the sample. This will help in answering many of the questions that Bigfoot researchers are looking for.

Hairs retrieved from a bush in 1968 near Riggins, Idaho were given to Roy Pinker, a police science instructor at California State University, Los Angeles. Pinker concluded that the hair samples did not match any samples from known animal species. Pinker also stated that he could not attribute them as being Bigfoot hairs without a bonafide Bigfoot hair sample to compare to.

Hair samples were also taken from a house located on the Lummi Indian reservation in Washington. Three more samples were retrieved from Maryland, Oregon and California. Forensic Anthropologist Dr. Ellis R. Kerley and Physical Anthropologist Dr. Stephen Rosen of the University of Maryland, as well as Tom Moore, the Supervisor of the Wyoming Game and Fish Laboratory, examined the hair samples and stated that all the hair samples matched in terms of belonging to a "non species specific mammal". They concurred in finding that the four sets matched each other, were similar to gorilla and human but were neither, and they did not match 84 other species of North American mammals.5

http://www.bigfoot-lives.com/html/other_forms_of_bigfoot_evidenc.html

, blood-typed cow blood,

Still wrong

Blood associated with the sample from Idaho was tested by Dr. Vincent Sarich of the University of California and found to be that of an unknown higher primate. ("The Bigfoot Evidence", pp22-29, Frontiers of Science Magazine, Vol. III, no.3, May 1981).

http://www.theblackvault.com/wiki/index.php/Bigfoot#Hair_and_blood

elk body impressions,

Not according to Drs Meldrum, Swindler, Schaller, et al, as documented in Dr Meldrum's book.

and bear photos don't really help us locate bigfoot.

Bear?http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=bigfoot+&view=detail&id=6C7D4E3EBF17E5E8534630E6B240A7C3C8EA9D59&first=0&qpvt=bigfoot+&FORM=IDFRIR

I could keep going, but I've proven my point.

[Guest]

I could keep going, but I've proven my point.

Well, you've proven Ray's point, that's for sure!

Let's take your first example: Fahrenbach's length to width ratio. Fahrenbach has discovered that footprints left by what some people think are bigfoots are wider than footprints left by people. Even if he is correct about that (the difference may be statistically significant but the effect is quite small), could you please explain the logic dictating that the prints included in the "bigfoot" category were actually made by bigfoots? How does "some footprints are wider than others" = bigfoot? What from this analysis conclusively rules out hoaxed prints in the sample of "bigfoot" prints?

[Guest RayG]

In which peer-reviewed scientific journals did Fahrenbach, Meldrum, Pinker, Kerley, Rosen, Moore, Sarich, Swindler, Schaller, et al, publish their conclusions?

RayG

[Guest FuriousGeorge]

I am not a scientist and have written no scientific papers, but Albert Einstein gave me the thumbs up about my conclusions in a dream. Does that count?

[Guest RayG]

No. Had you said Edgar Cayce or Miss Cleo...

RayG